Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46674)
Facts:
Arcilla v. Arcilla, G.R. No. L-46674, September 16, 1985, Supreme Court Second Division, Cuevas, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Laureano Arcilla was one of several defendants in Civil Case No. 395‑T, an action for annulment of sale with damages filed by the private respondents in the then Court of First Instance of Cebu on May 28, 1973. After answers were filed and issues joined, the case proceeded to pre‑trial. At the pre‑trial on July 29, 1975 the trial court reset the continuation of pre‑trial to October 2, 1975 and ordered that counsel be notified.
On October 2, 1975, defendants and their counsel did not appear and, upon motion of plaintiffs' counsel, the trial court declared defendants in default under Section 2, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court and permitted plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte. Judgment by default was rendered on October 27, 1976 in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering annulment of the deed of sale and declaring co‑ownership among certain heirs; a copy of the decision was received by defendants’ counsel Atty. Cosme D. Monteclaros on November 8, 1976.
Petitioner, through new counsel, moved on March 25, 1977 to lift the order of default and to set aside the October 27, 1976 decision; that motion was denied by the trial court on April 12, 1977. Petitioner then filed a verified Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 on April 16, 1977, alleging lack of notice of the October 2 pre‑trial, that he only learned of the judgment on March 24, 1977, and attaching an affidavit of merit. The trial court denied the petition in an Order dated May 18, 1977, holding that notice to counsel is notice to the client and that the petition was filed beyond the 60‑day period prescribed in Section 3, Rule 38.
Attributing grave abuse of discretion to the trial judge, petitioner brought the present special civil action for certiorar...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for relief from judgment filed within the reglementary period prescribed by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court?
- If untimely, did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion or act without jurisdiction in denying the petition; alternatively, was the default and judgment void fo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)